Experts Question Court Decision Over Charter Amendment Bill

[rubl]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Well, between us (two lawyers), where you wrote "For reasons best known to the Dems (for complaining that the bill would bring about about the overthrow of the Head of State) and the CC (for illegally ordering the stoppage of debate) the 3rd reading of the bill has been stopped.", I replied "Constitution Court spokesman Pimol Thammapitakpong said it was up to the House whether to postpone the reading AND the vote couldn't proceed due to injunction". Amazingly we were describing the same event.

(quotes from an earlier conversation in this thread)

[tlansford]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

[waza]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

I think the problem has been the political parties has been perverting the will of the voters by buying and coercing votes, buying and coercing political parties and buying politicians. The Judiciary should have the power to correct and punish this and provide checks and balances on Politicians and political parties behaviour.

[tlansford]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

I think the problem has been the political parties has been perverting the will of the voters by buying and coercing votes, buying and coercing political parties and buying politicians. The Judiciary should have the power to correct and punish this and provide checks and balances on Politicians and political parties behaviour.

If a politician breaks the law, there should be penalties - absolutely.

But does the court need to dissolve a party completely? IMO, no.

This is a creation of the Junta. It allows a court to overturn an election. That is a historical fact, and in the current events with the CC the nation reported that the PTP could be dissolved if the court ruled against it. That would, essentially overturn another election. According to observers, there wasn't fraud in the last election. Should the results of a popular election be annulled by 9 justices?

It seems much easier to manipulate 9 justices than to manipulate 45 million voters... Maybe that is the appeal of such a rule?

[lannarebirth]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

I think the problem has been the political parties has been perverting the will of the voters by buying and coercing votes, buying and coercing political parties and buying politicians. The Judiciary should have the power to correct and punish this and provide checks and balances on Politicians and political parties behaviour.

If a politician breaks the law, there should be penalties - absolutely.

But does the court need to dissolve a party completely? IMO, no.

This is a creation of the Junta. It allows a court to overturn an election. That is a historical fact, and in the current events with the CC the nation reported that the PTP could be dissolved if the court ruled against it. That would, essentially overturn another election. According to observers, there wasn't fraud in the last election. Should the results of a popular election be annulled by 9 justices?

It seems much easier to manipulate 9 justices than to manipulate 45 million voters... Maybe that is the appeal of such a rule?

I think it is the Thai version of RICO Statutes. It's a little heavy handed, I agree. Like chemotherapy which is extremely debilitating, but seems to be the only way to root out the inner cancer. Improving on it will be a process rather than an act.

Edited June 14, 2012 by lannarebirth

[Moruya]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

[thaicbr]

Has Thailand had a CDA before?

How was the 1997 constitution written?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Moruya]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

Hey little sister what have you done?

Hey little sister who's the only one?

Hey little sister who's your superman?

Hey little sister who's the one you want?

Hey little sister shot gun!

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day for a whitewash.

It's a nice day to start again.

Hey little sister who is it you're with?

Hey little sister what's your vice and wish?

Hey little sister shot gun (oh yeah)

Hey little sister who's your superman?

Hey little sister shot gun!

It's a nice day to start again (come on)

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

(Pick it up)

Take me back home

Hey little sister what have you done?

Hey little sister who's the only one?

I've been away for so long (so long)

I've been away for so long (so long)

I let you go for so long

It's a nice day to start again (come on)

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

There is nothin' fair in this world

There is nothin' safe in this world

And there's nothin' sure in this world

And there's nothin' pure in this world

Look for something left in this world

Start again

Come on

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day to start again

[phiphidon]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

Edited June 14, 2012 by phiphidon

[phiphidon]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

snip

If you read up on the constitution and how it is ammended and did some reading of the threads instead of posting nonsense songs you might just understand, maybe, if you want to.

Edited June 14, 2012 by phiphidon

[Moruya]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

Exactly.

So you're saying that someone decided that it would be a fantastic idea to change the Constitution - but not one person in the whole world knows what changes will be made, what the benfit of those changes will be and to whom.

Splendid - that's why everyone is so happy.

[lannarebirth]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

Hey little sister what have you done?

Hey little sister who's the only one?

Hey little sister who's your superman?

Hey little sister who's the one you want?

Hey little sister shot gun!

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day for a whitewash.

It's a nice day to start again.

Hey little sister who is it you're with?

Hey little sister what's your vice and wish?

Hey little sister shot gun (oh yeah)

Hey little sister who's your superman?

Hey little sister shot gun!

It's a nice day to start again (come on)

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

(Pick it up)

Take me back home

Hey little sister what have you done?

Hey little sister who's the only one?

I've been away for so long (so long)

I've been away for so long (so long)

I let you go for so long

It's a nice day to start again (come on)

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

There is nothin' fair in this world

There is nothin' safe in this world

And there's nothin' sure in this world

And there's nothin' pure in this world

Look for something left in this world

Start again

Come on

It's a nice day for a whitewash

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day to start again.

It's a nice day to start again

Very clever and apropos.

[thaicbr]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

Are you SURE about that? The CDA bit I mean.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Moruya]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

snip

If you read up on the constitution and how it is ammended and did some reading of the threads instead of posting nonsense songs you might just understand, maybe, if you want to.

1997 Constitution allowed a megalomaniac to roger the nation backwards.

2006 Army types decide to tidy up the mess and put some additional checks and balances in place for future governments

2012 PTP wants to go back to rogering the nation and takes the oportunity to whitewash brother Thasksin of his vast array of crimes

So I'm listening to White Wedding and you're still with Tracy Chapman's "Talkin 'bout a Revolution"

[phiphidon]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

snip

If you read up on the constitution and how it is ammended and did some reading of the threads instead of posting nonsense songs you might just understand, maybe, if you want to.

1997 Constitution allowed a megalomaniac to roger the nation backwards.

2006 Army types decide to tidy up the mess and put some additional checks and balances in place for future governments

2012 PTP wants to go back to rogering the nation and takes the oportunity to whitewash brother Thasksin of his vast array of crimes

So I'm listening to White Wedding and you're still with Tracy Chapman's "Talkin 'bout a Revolution"

11 minutes of study and this is what you come up with, it figures

[volk666]

Re. 2006 petition that Constitution Court rejected arguing it should have been submitted via Attorney General's office - that was in 2006, since then we have lived through a coup and two massive party dissolution cases and also have a new constitution so interpretations and especially intent of the article must be viewed with post-coup experience in mind.

Another point is that 2006 petition required investigation into Democrat party actions and motives so was passed to AG, current petition doesn't require any investigations, just reading the proposed amendment.

Also the Court seems to follow its own latest precedent by accepting a petition to dissolve the Democrat party, that was just yesterday.

If there's a case for impeachment of the judges it should go through legitimate process and reds have already started it. Until it succeeds the court injunction must be treated as legally binding.

On the scope of amendment of article 291 that sets up CDA - Democrats and others feel that it oversteps the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, for example by giving the CDA powers to do a complete rewrite and come up with a new charter. Current constitution allows only for amendments so there's a legitimate question here.

On the point that if proposed amendment to the article 291 is unconstitutional then the court would have ruled so after the bill is passed - well, if a burglar lifts a TV off your wall, when does he become a thief and you have the right to call the police? Should you wait until he leaves the house and loads your TV in his car?

Potentially it's a very serious matter and it should be nipped in the bud, containing it after the bill has passed the House would be much more difficult - just look what stink PTP raised about CC intruding on their turf already and all they've been asked was to postpone the deliberations. Imagine what PTP would do if the court overrules their final vote.

And, of course, Democrats are using all stalling tactics available, that is bloody obvious, that's about the only option they have left and I don't see why they shouldn't use it.

[waza]

Not at all, the dems have complained that the charter ammendment is a threat to the the higher institution and the CC have accepted this complaint directly from the Dems citing Article 68 - this is the crux of the matter - i.e there is a standard of how to deal with complaints that have been brought under Article 68 - the Constitution Court has not followed this standard.

Let's just say this is the situation.

PTP wakes up one morning and says "It's a nice day for a whitewash" and a new song os born...

snip

If you read up on the constitution and how it is ammended and did some reading of the threads instead of posting nonsense songs you might just understand, maybe, if you want to.

Hey its TVF the musical.

[waza]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

I believe the ammendment to the constitution is more than what is needed to form a CDA, its also the terms of reference for the CDA. That is what they can discuss and amend, such it must include amnesty, judicial changes ect. The CC will check if the terms of reference includes taboo items.

[Moruya]

11 minutes of study and this is what you come up with, it figures

I thought I would make it easy for you to understand.

[rubl]

Regarding the charter amendment and CDA forming these details are from 2012-04-25. Not sure there are more recent details

"Coalition draws the line at CDA formation"

http://www.nationmul...n-30180674.html

[tlansford]

The amazing aspect of this particular topic is the large number of posters who seem to be able to read, quote and understand Thai law which in it's defining, valid and legal state is in Thai only. The easy with which various accusations are made (as part of opinions) and how the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English makes me wonder how 'real' lawyers & judges would regard proceedings here on TV.

The official accepted language on this forum is English. There are English translations of the Constitution available and there are other sources that translate Thai articles/judgements etc. to English. The posters discussing this constitutional crisis will not be called "to the bar" so I don't think there is any harm in using the resources available to share and discuss what information is available.

I take issue with your comment that "the difference between asked, told, ordered, between said, alleged, stated, is deemed unimportant when written down here in English ". I would say it is very important as various nuances of the English Language can make a big difference to the meaning as we have discussed before.

I suspect that when a verdict is reached you will accept it in it's English form or will you insist upon the unadulterated Thai language edition only?

Can we carry on discussing this now, even if we are not thai speaking lawyers?

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Moruya, reading comprehension is needed on your side.

I point out that there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet. So bum, yes, I have one, but it is not smoking.

On the other hand, I did point out some changes which I think would be interesting to propose. Perhaps you have some of your own?

[tlansford]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

Phiphidon, maybe it is tvf vacation time again - why don't we come back when the CDA starts to debate....

[rubl]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Moruya, reading comprehension is needed on your side.

I point out that there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet. So bum, yes, I have one, but it is not smoking.

On the other hand, I did point out some changes which I think would be interesting to propose. Perhaps you have some of your own?

Minor correction only on "there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet"

Changes have been discussed, both to the charter and to how the CDA would/should be formed (see #140 a.o.). The CDA will only be formed AFTER voting. This only means how the CDA is formed / approved can and will still be discussed further.

[phiphidon]

Minor correction only on "there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet"

Changes have been discussed, both to the charter and to how the CDA would/should be formed (see #140 a.o.). The CDA will only be formed AFTER voting. This only means how the CDA is formed / approved can and will still be discussed further.

Correct, rubl. The composition of the CDA and how those representatives will be elected/proposed has been provisionally agreed after 15 days of deliberation during the 2nd reading of the bill. However during the 3rd reading this is firmed up and is the "last chance saloon" for any amendments. Which is presumably why the dems (and the CC for that matter) are trying everything in their power to delay the reading until they can think of something else.

The only problem with this is we don't get to see Chuwits video of MP's voting for their non attending colleagues (as promised by him after the charter amendment bill was finished) for a while longer......................

[OzMick]

Meanwhile, the parliamentary "experts" vote with their feet, deciding not to show up for the vote. "Important business elsewhere" the most common explanation and hard to refute when also used by the PM.

But it's not about Thaksin - who promptly throws a tantrum and starts demanding to know who were not in attendance and why, not only from PTP but CTP as well. Will a note from their mum do?

[thaicbr]

Minor correction only on "there is not a CDA yet, which means that the changes to be made to the charter have not been discussed yet"

Changes have been discussed, both to the charter and to how the CDA would/should be formed (see #140 a.o.). The CDA will only be formed AFTER voting. This only means how the CDA is formed / approved can and will still be discussed further.

Correct, rubl. The composition of the CDA and how those representatives will be elected/proposed has been provisionally agreed after 15 days of deliberation during the 2nd reading of the bill. However during the 3rd reading this is firmed up and is the "last chance saloon" for any amendments. Which is presumably why the dems (and the CC for that matter) are trying everything in their power to delay the reading until they can think of something else.

The only problem with this is we don't get to see Chuwits video of MP's voting for their non attending colleagues (as promised by him after the charter amendment bill was finished) for a while longer......................

Actually it had NOT been agreed. The Phua Thai party refused to do two of the amendments requested by the Democrats. As linked previously.

Thats really the point Phua Thai have the majority (14 million voters) but the Democrats also received 11 million votes so their voice should be heard and in most if not all democratic governments it would be.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

[thaihome]

....IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

Changing the Senate to 100% elected and doing away with party disoultion are good examples of changes that have broad support.

But why does PTP need a CDA to make those changes? They could be done within section 291. Instead, they are insisting on setting up a CDA that has no limits on what it can come up with.

TH

[phiphidon]

Actually it had NOT been agreed. The Phua Thai party refused to do two of the amendments requested by the Democrats. As linked previously.

Thats really the point Phua Thai have the majority (14 million voters) but the Democrats also received 11 million votes so their voice should be heard and in most if not all democratic governments it would be.

sent from my Wellcom A90+

They didn't refuse "to do two of the amendments requested by the Democrats", they had a vote on the proposals. Their voice was heard. Thats how democracy works I'm afraid. One of the amendments was this, I don't know the other one.

MPs and senators yesterday proposed that people who join the drafting assembly be banned from holding a political post for five years However the proposal was defeated in a vote.

http://www.nationmul...d-30181992.html

It's a free vote so it's up to the dems to put a convincing enough argument forward for their point of view to win votes.

What do you propose as an alternative, give the dems more votes as a kind of handicap for not getting enough MP's elected?

[gregb]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

The other problem, which all of the Thaksin supporters on here conveniently want to ignore, is whether or not it is legal to allow the legislature to decide on whether or not to submit the outcome of this CDA directly to the people without allowing the Constitution Court to review it for constitutionality. So there is a lovely recommendation that specifically states this is prohibited, can be conveniently ignored by the CDA, because it isn't actually enforceable on them. It is more of a request. Then, the Thaksin supporters in government can simply send the constitutionally invalid charter for a vote.

Now you have a serious problem. If the charter is approved by the people, which law is valid? The old one approved by the voters, or the new one approved by the voters? The Constitution Court will say one thing. Thaksin will say another. The army will be the one's who eventually decide.

The Thaksin supporters will tell you that the PT are nice people and would never, ever do something like this. Those of us who mistrust the demagogue in Dubai aren't quite so willing to take him at his word. The legislation must clearly spell out that the output of the CDA must be vetted by the Constitution Court for constitutionality BEFORE being submitted to the population for a vote.

Otherwise, any promises made today by the government are meaningless. Put it in writing. Let the Constitution Court vet the outcome of the CDA. Or are you afraid this would upset the real motivation for rewriting the constitution? And if that motivation is to overrule the judiciary in one of their legal opinions, then I would say the worry of overthrowing the Head of State is not without merit. The court derives its power from the Head of State, and overthrowing their decision could very well be considered an attack against the Head of State in my opinion.

This is a touchy issue, and people need to be less confrontational about how it is approached. Otherwise, the smoke being blown is hardly being done so by the opposition.

[tlansford]

Interestingly, there is precious little to discuss about charter changes at the moment - only the dems maneuvering to block the process before there is even a CDA.

IMO unless the CC does jump in and stop the process, then we'll soon have something interesting to talk about regarding the proposed changes. Personally, it would be interesting if they make the Senate 100 elected again. Since the Senate is part of the judicial appointment process and the judges are part of the Senate appointment process, this leads to a bizarre undemocratic situation. I also think that it should be harder to ban a political party - not that there can't still be strict penalties for inappropriate behavior, just that this does not need to be a trigger to eliminate an entire party. As has already been seen in recent years, this gives the judiciary the power to reverse the will of the voters.

If yuo know what changes are due to be made to the Constitution, then please tell all.

In the absence of anything to back it up, all you are doing is blowing smoke out yer bum!

Thats the whole point, how many more times!! The changes to the constitution can not be discussed and proposed until the CDA is formed. The ammendment to the constitution that the CC has blocked is purely what is needed to form a CDA, nothing more, nothing less. It's the dems that are blowing smoke up everybodies bum with their B/S about overthrowing the Head of State. Article 291 which allows changes to the constitution specifically states that this is prohibited. Read the threads.

The other problem, which all of the Thaksin supporters on here conveniently want to ignore, is whether or not it is legal to allow the legislature to decide on whether or not to submit the outcome of this CDA directly to the people without allowing the Constitution Court to review it for constitutionality. So there is a lovely recommendation that specifically states this is prohibited, can be conveniently ignored by the CDA, because it isn't actually enforceable on them. It is more of a request. Then, the Thaksin supporters in government can simply send the constitutionally invalid charter for a vote.

Now you have a serious problem. If the charter is approved by the people, which law is valid? The old one approved by the voters, or the new one approved by the voters? The Constitution Court will say one thing. Thaksin will say another. The army will be the one's who eventually decide.

The Thaksin supporters will tell you that the PT are nice people and would never, ever do something like this. Those of us who mistrust the demagogue in Dubai aren't quite so willing to take him at his word. The legislation must clearly spell out that the output of the CDA must be vetted by the Constitution Court for constitutionality BEFORE being submitted to the population for a vote.

Otherwise, any promises made today by the government are meaningless. Put it in writing. Let the Constitution Court vet the outcome of the CDA. Or are you afraid this would upset the real motivation for rewriting the constitution? And if that motivation is to overrule the judiciary in one of their legal opinions, then I would say the worry of overthrowing the Head of State is not without merit. The court derives its power from the Head of State, and overthrowing their decision could very well be considered an attack against the Head of State in my opinion.

This is a touchy issue, and people need to be less confrontational about how it is approached. Otherwise, the smoke being blown is hardly being done so by the opposition.

As I recall, the changes to the charter under Abhisit did not get reviewed by the CC, and of course it was just a parliamentary vote.

(correct me if I am wrong, please)

The point being that there is a process for adapting the charter, and that process needs to be followed. If it doesn't include the CC, then so be it. You might notice that in other countries (USA) the supreme court doesn't review constitutional amendments.